Honestly TL - I had spotted that post of his on GD and thought to myself "That's not like Donut - he takes his spelling and punctuation very seriously". I shut my mouth though and didn't say anything. I then come over here to the CE forum and he is sticking the boot in. I was flabbergasted - POT KETTLE BLACK.

And you are right - Azred does overuse that smiley. I thought it was his signature [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Cerek, this is naive, especially for you. Ask yourself this -- How does my country act when it does not get its way?

Good point TL - the response ranges. Tariffs and subsidies at one end of the spectrum where economically the intransigents can be bought to heel. Blockades, embargoes, and the old fashioned "send in the troops" for people and countries that really piss them off.

Like the pirate code, the Geneva Convention is more a set of guidelines really - unless that is the captives are marines. In that case the Geneva Convention better be followed to the letter of the law or there will be hell to pay.

Now despite everything, I am happy that Saddam is out on his ear. I can sift the arguments and I like that he is now a historical footnote. I don't like double standards over the geneva Convention. Either you are in or you are out. You don't get to chose where and when the circumstances most suit. And when it comes down to it I feel we were all bullied into a war through lying and the misrepresentation of a WOMD threat that was not there.

Paul O'Neill found out that it was "My way or the highway" and the UN and world in general got the same message over Iraq. Don't let any of the hawks in the administration hear you saying that the US is seen as a gentle giant, cos they will want to leap even further to the right if people start thinking they are a bunch of wimps ;) .

Cerek, this is naive, especially for you. Ask yourself this -- How does my country act when it does not get its way? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Much the same way every other superpower has acted when they were one of the Big Kids on the Block.</font>

The UN can't go after anyone's enemies unless they're given a green light from the Security Counsil. This is just the way it works. It's not an army for hire.

Much of the credability of UN comes from it's, relatively speaking, neutrality regarding international issues. It would lose that credability if it gave resources and material for a military campaign that wasn't sanctioned by the Security Counsil. Image how this could be abused. I also want to note that it wasn't the really UN who voted down USA regarding the latest Iraq war, rather it was the individual countries within the Security Counsil.

It's true that USA have given much to the UN, but that debt can't be repayed by demanding that the UN do something that's against their own rules. They follow those rules because those, and various other international agreements, are the only thing even resembling a judiciary system we have on an international level. The world on this level is mostly self-moderating. This is probably the biggest reason so many people around the world protest whenever the USA chooses to go it's own way. They feel that the USA broken agreements they've made with others, but they also know that it's not much that can be done about it. No world government to complain to. Any international agreement only has as much weigh as countries choose to put into it. USA is a major player and the expectations on it are very high.

Cerek, this is naive, especially for you. Ask yourself this -- How does my country act when it does not get its way? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Much the same way every other superpower has acted when they were one of the Big Kids on the Block.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Nay, I'd go so far as to say much the same way every country still acts to the full extent that it can. I mean, Davros may mentions tarrifs, but let us not forget the EU has its fair share of tarrif infractions as well -- the redefining of banana 4 times, the successful war against US GMO crops, etc.

But, the point is, as I'm sure you'll concede, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and calling something a "gentle giant" doesn't make it so. Your point was we did not act like a bully. I think that was wrong -- we do. To the extent you are now making the point that others also act like bullies, well.... yeah.... and?

Nobody is admitting to it!! :D

Absolutely - I'm glad you are big enough to admit it at last.

<font color=plum>That's true. And it was later learned that the three primary "individual countries" opposed U.S. action because it would jeapordize the the profits they were making from illegal trade agreements with Iraq. Of course, they were able to put on the appearance of "taking the high ground" in their objections - at least until the truth of their illegal trade practices were discovered.

So that isn't much of a "feather" in the cap of the Security Council.

One of the biggest complaints against the U.N. is that they did not allow the military to continue into Iraq and finish the job it started in 1991. That was also a major factor that motivated Bush, Jr. to say that - THIS time - we were going in with or WITHOUT the U.N.'s approval.

We played the game by the U.N. rules for 12 years, and Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the U.N. and U.S. during the entire fiasco. The U.N. Security Council showed beyond any doubt that they were either powerless or unwilling to actually follow up on any serious threats against Hussein for his non-compliance.

So he sat back and defied the U.N. until the heat got too much...then he would suddenly put on the facade of compliance only as long as necessary for the U.N. to forget about him and his country and move on to the next issue - at which time he could return to torturing and killing any citizens he took a dislike to and could funnel money to his scientists for the development of a weapons stockpile that he had agreed to do away with.</font>

Absolutely - I'm glad you are big enough to admit it at last. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>As bad as you may perceive it to be, <font color=orange>Donut</font>, the cold, hard fact is that the U.S. could be a HELLUVA lot bigger bully if we really wanted to.

Many have complained about the number of deaths in Iraq, but the American Military could have gone in and just carpet-bombed the country to smoldering ash. If President Bush really just wanted to steal their oil, we could easily send our aircraft end and gain control of Iraq, Iran and Syria within a few weeks.

If President Bush really planned the number of future pre-emptive strikes his critics are hysterically claiming he does, we could gain control of the Middle East in relatively short order. Then WE could set the global prices for oil while also ensuring that our own country had a steady and secure supply.

So you and others can call us a Big Bully all you want, but the fact is we are not nearly as much of a bully as we have the power to be. As <font color=white>Stratos</font> admitted in his post, it isn't so much the fact that the U.S. decided to go off on it's own that raised so much ire, it was the fearful realization by other countries that they didn't have the power to stop us. Naturally, this leads to the frightening deluge of "What If..." questions.

What if the U.S. doesn't stop with Iraq?
What if the U.S. decides to invade Iran next?
What if the U.S. decides to invade US next? :eek:

But the U.S. has NOT shown the desire nor the intent to invade other countries and take control of them. President Bush neither plans nor wants to "take control" of Iraq. He wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and - now that has been accomplished - he is trying to establish a democratic government there for the first time in decades (if not longer).

Critics complain that the U.S. removed the Taliban in Afghanistan, but just placed a local warlord in charge in their place. That may be true, but it is also true that life under this "warlord" is far more free and less restrictive for the citizens of Afghanistan than it was before. President Bush and his advisors proved they were committed to allowing these countries to rule themselves and they chose from the candidates they had to work with in Afghanistan.</font>